The Reification of the Other as a Social Pathology

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 13-44
Author(s):  
Alexis Gros ◽  

The present paper constitutes an attempt to articulate, systematize, and further develop the implicit traces of a phenomenological critical theory that, according to Michael Barber’s reading, are to be found in Schutz’s thought. It is my contention that a good way to achieve this aim is by reading Schutz against the background of novel, phenomenologically and hermeneutically informed accounts of Critical Theory in the tradition of the Frankfurt School, such as Hartmut Rosa’s. In order to achieve the stated objective, I will proceed in four steps. First (1), I will briefly reconstruct the mostly negative reception of phenomenology, the interpretive social sciences, and Schutz by both the Frankfurt School and contemporary critical social theory. Second (2), I will present Barber’s alternative reading of Schutzian phenomenology as entailing an implicit ethics and a rudimentary critical theory based thereon. Third (3), I will sketch out Rosa’s formal model of Critical Theory as an heuristic means for articulating Schutz’s unspoken social-critical insights. Finally (4), establishing a dialogue between Barber’s reading of Schutz and Rosa’s account, I will provide a preliminary articulation of Schutz’s rudimentary critical theory.

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (9) ◽  
pp. 1043-1051
Author(s):  
Fred Rush

Nikolas Kompridis' Critique and Disclosure is a sustained argument for the proposition that critical social theory in the tradition of the Frankfurt School is best carried forward by rejecting central aspects of Habermas' neo-Kantian version of it. The most promising future direction for critical theory according to Kompridis involves a reconsideration of the resources of hermeneutic phenomenology, especially renewed attention to the Heideggerian concept ‘disclosure’. To this end, Kompridis develops a distinctive dialectical version of this concept. I agree that Kantian versions of critical theory are philosophically suspect, and that critical theory is most conceptually vital and politically trenchant when turned away from ‘discourse ethics' and the like. I am a bit less sanguine than is Kompridis with a turn to Heidegger, however, and raise several issues having to do with that aspect of Kompridis' account. This caution is not rooted simply in the historical fact that critical theory from its inception has attempted to immunize itself against phenomenology; it is rather a conceptual matter. In my judgment, Kompridis does not need to develop, as he does, an intricate account of overlap between what he holds best about critical theory and Heidegger’s ontology. If one were looking for historical antecedents that do not come freighted with what Horkheimer derided as ‘irrationalism’, one would do better to investigate early German Romanticism, in which there is an explicitly interpretive yet dialectical methodology on offer. Moreover, the central doctrines of Jena Romanticism exhibit more positive points of contact with the earlier, more skeptical forms of critical theory that Kompridis might favor, e.g. Adorno’s.


2008 ◽  
Vol 38 (151) ◽  
pp. 255-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Kappeler

In its first part, the article deals with Michel Foucaults "discourse analysis", as developed in his "Archaeology of knowledge". The second part considers the concept of discourse in relation to Foucaults "analytic of power" and to a critical theory of society inspired by Karl Marx, especially Louis Althussers notion of ideology. Thus, on the one hand, some propositions for a methodology of discourse analysis are being made, and, on the other hand, its position within a project of critical social theory is discussed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabian Freyenhagen

In this paper, I would like to take up one proposal that I touch on as part of the longer paper delivered at the SPT conference on Critical Theory and the Concept of Social Pathology. The proposal is an analytic grid for characterising social pathologies, particularly in thelight of the conceptualisations of this idea specified within the Frankfurt School CriticalTheory tradition.Let me first summarise briefly the longer paper. I present some general features of the idea of social pathology (see below), and suggest that this idea can set FrankfurtSchool Critical Theory apart from mainstream liberal approaches – notably, in virtue of the specifically ethical register it involves (rather than a justice-based one dominant incontemporary liberalism) and the interdisciplinary approach it calls for (which marks a contrast to the relatively stark division between normative theorising and the social sciences characteristic of much of political philosophy today). I criticise the way Habermas and Honneth transform the early Frankfurt School conceptualisations of this idea by tying itto their respective models of functional differentiation of society.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Renault

AbstractThe purpose of this article is to bridge the gap between critical theory as understood in the Frankfurt school tradition on the one hand, and social ontology understood as a reflection on the ontological presuppositions of social sciences and social theories on the other. What is at stake is the type of social ontology that critical theory needs if it wants to tackle its main social ontological issue: that of social transformation. This paper’s claim is that what is required is neither a substantial social ontology, nor a relational social ontology, but a processual one. The first part of this article elaborates the distinction between substantial, relational and processual social ontologies. The second part analyzes the various ways in which this distinction can be used in social ontological discussions. Finally, the third part focuses on the various possible social ontological approaches to the issue of social transformation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 71
Author(s):  
Umar Sholahudin

This article aims to examine the critical theory of the Fraknfurt school, especially those related to its history, concepts, assumptions, and contributions. Historically-geneologically, critical theory was born from the womb of Marxist theory. Although born from the womb of Marxist theory, critical theory is not too satisfied with the analysis of the Marxians who are considered too mechanistic economic determinism in seeing the social reality of Western capitalist society. According to critical theory, the Marxian analysis in viewing and analyzing the inequality of the reality of capitalist society in Europe is too reductionist, that is, it is the economic factor (structure) that determines socio-economic inequality or class conflict in a capitalist society. The critical theory developed by the people who call themselves Neo-Maxians, exists to further develop the classical Marxian analysis, which rests not only on economic factors, but also on other socio-economic factors. The Frankfurt school of critical social theory thought services pioneered by Horkheimer, however, has provided a relatively new (though not very new) theoretical perspective in seeing, understanding and analyzing social reality. This critical social theory perspective has contributed significantly to the development of social theory. One of them is that critical theory has contributed to the development of critical and emancipatory awareness of human practice in seeing social realities that are full of inequality and injustice.Keyword : Critical Theory, Frankfurt School, History, Development of Social Theory


2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-038
Author(s):  
Algimantas Valantiejus

Santrauka. Šio straipsnio paskirtis – atnaujinti diskusiją dėl teorinės struktūros sandaros, kurią suda­ro ir analitiniai, ir normatyviniai elementai. Pagrindinis uždavinys – analitiškumo ir normatyviškumo komponentų kintančioje kritinės socialinės teorijos sandaroje identifikavimas ir metodologinių požiūrių į šių komponentų tarpusavio santykį šiuolaikinėse praktikos teorijose analizė. Siekiama atsakyti į klausimą, kodėl kritikos sąvoka šiuolaikinėse praktikos teorijose keičiama reflektyvumo sąvoka. Straipsnyje, remiantis kritinių teoretikų nuorodomis ir jas interpretuojant, analizuojamos „nekalto“ (Wittgensteino Filosofinių tyrinėjimų 308 fragmente aptariama prasme) terminologinio pakeitimo euristinės implikacijos šių dienų kritinėms socialinėms teorijoms, kurios skiriamos nuo ankstyvosios Frankfurto kritinės teorijos. Pagrindiniai žodžiai: kritika, reflektyvumas, kritinė teorija, kritinė socialinė teorija, praktikos teo­rija. Key words: critique, reflexivity, critical theory, critical social theory, practice theory. ABSTRACT ON THE QUESTION OF CRITICAL THEORY TODAY The task of this article is to renew the discussion about the theoretical structure which includes both analytical and normative elements. The main theoretical problem analyzed in the article is the identifi­cation of analytical and normative elements in the structure of critical social theory and the analysis of the relationship between these elements in contemporary practice theories. The article seeks to answer the ques­tion why the concept of critique in contemporary practice theories is changed by the concept of reflexivity. The article aims to emphasize the implications of this „innocent“ terminological change for contemporary critical social theories, distinguished from early Critical Theory of Frankfurt School.


2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-9
Author(s):  
Neal Harris

For generations, critical social theorists have turned to the framing of ‘pathology’ to provide a theoretical infrastructure for their critique. Such an approach famously undergirds much of the Frankfurt School’s canonical work. Axel Honneth, current chair of the Institute of Social Research, continues this tradition. While Frankfurt School approaches have largely tied pathology diagnosis to a critique of historically mediated reason, a plurality of alternate conceptions exist. With the ascendancy of an intersubjective approach to critical social theory, the pathologies of the social have increasingly been comprehended as ‘pathologies of recognition’. Advocates of such a framing point to the ease of establishing an immanent basis to their critique, and of the empirical evidence supporting the need for recognition. Yet, today’s academy is increasingly spilt between those who embrace a ‘pathologies of recognition’ framework, and those who consider the development a ‘domestication’ of the Critical Theoretical tradition. This special issue brings together contributors from both sides of this divide. While the optimal framing of social pathology remains contested, the contributors to this collection are committed to furthering forms of social critique which transcend the limited liberal framings of injustice and illegitimacy.


Thesis Eleven ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 072551362110059
Author(s):  
Geoff Boucher

Frankfurt School critical theory is perhaps the most significant theory of society to have developed directly from a research programme focused on the critique of political authoritarianism, as it manifested during the interwar decades of the 20th century. The Frankfurt School’s analysis of the persistent roots – and therefore the perennial nature – of what it describes as the ‘authoritarian personality’ remains influential in the analysis of authoritarian populism in the contemporary world, as evidenced by several recent studies. Yet the tendency in these studies is to reference the final formulation of the category, as expressed in Theodor Adorno and co-thinkers’ The Authoritarian Personality (1950), as if this were a theoretical readymade that can be unproblematically inserted into a measured assessment of the threat to democracy posed by current authoritarian trends. It is high time that the theoretical commitments and political stakes in the category of the authoritarian personality are re-evaluated, in light of the evolution of the Frankfurt School. In this paper, I review the classical theories of the authoritarian personality, arguing that two quite different versions of the theory – one characterological, the other psychodynamic – can be extracted from Frankfurt School research.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 94-124
Author(s):  
Michael Hviid Jacobsen

This article critically addresses the contemporary study of what is called 'defensive emotions' such as fear and nostalgia among a number of social theorists. While it may be true that the collective emotions of fear and nostalgia (here framed by the phrase of 'retrotopia') may indeed be on the rise in Western liberal democracies, it is also important to be wary of taking the literature on the matter as a sign that fear and nostalgia actually permeate all levels of culture and everyday life. The article starts out with some reflections on the sociology of emotions and shows how the early interest in emotions (theoretical and empirical) among a small group of sociologists is today supplemented with the rise of a critical social theory using collective emotions as a lens for conducting a critical analysis of the times. Then the article in turn deals with the contemporary interest within varuious quarters of the social sciences with describing, analysing and diagnosing the rise of what is here called 'defensive emotions' – emotions that express and symbolize a society under attack and emotions that are mostly interpreted as negative signs of the times. This is followed by some reflections on the collective emotions of fear and nostalgia/retrotopia respectively. The article is concluded with a discussion of how we may understand and assess this relatively new interest in defensive emotions.


Author(s):  
Milja Kurki

This chapter argues for an extension of how we think relationally via relational cosmology. It places relational cosmology in a conversation with varied relational perspectives in critical social theory and argues that specific kinds of extensions and dialogues emerge from this perspective. In particular, a conversation on how to think relationality without fixing its meaning is advanced. This chapter also discusses in detail how to extend beyond discussion of ‘human’ relationalities towards comprehending the wider ‘mesh’ of relations that matter but are hard to capture for situated knowers in the social sciences and IR. This key chapter seeks to provide the basis for a translation between relational cosmology, critical social theory, critical humanism and International Relations theory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document